40x60" prints from B&W negs: drum scanner, printer advice?

[Bruce Watson]

When I did a comparison with good drum scans, I did not see much difference in 18 x 24 prints for the negatives I scanned.

I think the problem, if there is one, is how each of us defines "much difference" for his/her prints.

Other than that, I think we in "violent agreement" again. ;-)

[Ed Richards]

I think the problem, if there is one, is how each of us defines "much difference" for his/her prints.

Other than that, I think we in "violent agreement" again. ;-)

Absolutely! I realized after looking at photographers whose work I liked that none of their images, AA included, depended on ulitmate sharpness. So, for me, after seeing that drum scans did make a difference with my images, I also decided that the difference was not worth worrying about. (But, as my wife would be the first to note, I am not an obessive compulsive sort of guy.)

I would drum scan if the tradeoffs were different, and you can bet that if I ever become the flavor of the day and get offered big money for prints, I will get everything drum scanned and claim that you cannot be an artist without it.:-)

[Frank Petronio]

The type and quantity of sharpening plays a larger role in the "out of box" results than many of us might think. Many scanners give you sharpening in the background, which makes there results look better when you compare them to unsharpened scans from other scanners...

If you sharpen and process each file to the best degree possible, then you can really compare. It maybe that the better scanner may only give you slightly better results but with less work than doing an elaborate workflow to get something decent from a lesser scanner...

[JoelBelmont]

Better to be out shooting when Moonrise comes along than to be home messing with processing and scanning.:-)

Hear Hear, though moonrise didn't come along. Have you ever seen the raw print before the work? Flat grey sky... really nothing special. Of course we know how moonrise came along... in the mind and hands of a master.

Thanks for the ideas. I also shoot Tmax 100 with XTOL 1:3, but I usually prefer N+1 (images made in flat light)... though that has always been adapted to make silver prints easier to print... is it advantageous to have less contrasty images to scan.. to save more info and tweak later? Will nicely contrasted negs print as well?

Thanks.

[Ed Richards]

> I usually prefer N+1 (images made in flat light)... though that has always been adapted to make silver prints easier to print... is it advantageous to have less contrasty images to scan.. to save more info and tweak later? Will nicely contrasted negs print as well?

I tend toward N-1 because I am usually shooting in pretty harsh light and trying to preserve significant shadow detail. The negatives that scan best look good on the light table - good density range, without the highlights blocked up. The negatives that surprise me are the ones that look too dense overall - many times they scan fine. I would assume that they would also print well on silver. N+1 or more would really help in flat light with a consumer scanner. I suspect that the drum scanners make the most difference on flat negatives because they can get better differentiation between levels.

The exposure range of Tmax and Xtol 1:3 is pretty wide, so you can use more and less exposure to expand and contract before you need to start changing development.

[JoelBelmont]

Actually I was wrong... I use XTOL 1:2.

Hopefully my negs that have been already adjusted to the contrast I desire (more or less) will scan fine. It removes detail, but it's closer to the end product I am looking for. Is there any advantage to shooting in flat light and not boosting contrast/having more to work with?

[Richard Kenward]

I am a LF photographer of 7 years, looking to convert to digital printing from 4x5 B&W negs.

Can anyone speak to the issue of drum scanners... it is more cost effective to purchase one, if I will be scanning possibly hundreds of negatives, or as technology progresses, is it better to have someone else drum scan them now and will drum scanners become more affordable any time soon? What is the price of an good drum scanner?

Also, can anyone reccomend some people that do drum scanning fairly affordably? I get the sense that B&W negs might need someone who is used to working with them, but that they might be easier to work with than color.

~Joel Belmont

Dear Joel

There is only any point in going to the trouble and or expense of drum scanning if you can be sure of getting the very best results. It is far more than just having a drum scanner in a back room. They are large, make quite a noise, the mounting fluids require proper ventilation and above all great cleanness is required. These machines are packed with electronics and drive motors etc and can be a minefield.

It is worth bearing in mind that whilst the buying price has fallen greatly in recent years due to many print shops having gone the easier and cheaper to operate flat bed route, servicing has become more difficult or impossible to obtain and the cost has risen. In many places service is simply not available for some makes and if something wrong it means shipping to another country with all the attendent risks and costs and uncertainties.

Having said all of this I can tell you that the best drum scans are significantly better than those obtaiable from a good CCD scanner such as the Imacon......we had one here for some time and were able to directly compare the results to what we could achieve from our drum scanners. A very big plus point amonst many others is that good drum scans are very clean so your pixels will not have been messed around with to remove crud etc.

If anyone is interested in discussing this off list with me I can be reached at richard@precision-drum-scanning.co.uk

Best wishes

Richard